Curse

Ardrid · May 04, 2006, 10:32 PM // 22:32

Let me start by saying, I don't know if anyone has started a thread on this issue, so don't flame me if there's one out there

With that out of the way, I'm starting this petition as a result of the whole SE/CE mess (yeah, I know, it's getting old). What I don't understand is why the CE key can't simply be unlinked from your account if you add an SE key. Take it a step further, I don't understand why you can't simply unlink any key.

Why am I requesting such a feature? Because without it it is literally impossible for us to sell GW if we're tired of it (for the record, I'm not, but this is something that's been on my mind with all the issues of late). What do most of you do with your old games that you either don't want or just don't need? You either sell them on eBay or sell them to GameStop or EB or you keep them for posterity. It is actually our legal right to be able to resell anything we purchase (I can do it with Q4, Doom 3, and HL2, all of which have CD keys, so why not GW?). Now, before you claim this would be infringement, or stealing, I'll explain to you why it's not.

The way GW's system works is that you're account is granted access based on the keys that are linked to it. If you don't have a key, you can't play (as we all saw when the Head Start Event came to a close). If you allow someone to unlink a key, they will permanently lose access until that key is relinked or they purchase a new one. So, since an account with no keys can't play the game, there is, by definition, no infringment. This would allow those of us who want to get the CE later, or currently have the SE and CE, to at least sell the copy that's no longer needed.

What I'd like to know is why this simply isn't possible. Maybe it's a money thing and ANet/NCSoft don't want ppl playing GW if they paid less than $40-50 for it. I don't know. What I do know is that there is no legally justifable reason for such a policy, especially if you own two copies of the same damn game (trust me, I've done the research) and the only thing it does is give us no way out. Anyways, if you think this option is a good idea, you're welcome to sign. If you want to debate over it, I'd be more than happy to do that as well

/Signed

Bwsk8 · May 04, 2006, 10:34 PM // 22:34

I disagree, would cause to many problems. Not worth it.

Also its a online game, with no monthly fee, you dont need to sell it after your done. Only costs 50 bux or less.

Ardrid · May 04, 2006, 10:38 PM // 22:38

That's not the point. All the other games I've mentioned, hell, all the other games I own don't have a monthly fee and that doesn't change the fact that I might want to sell them down the line. I also don't see how it would be too difficult to implement because I can almost guarantee that ANet can do it, they just choose not to.

EternalTempest · May 04, 2006, 10:38 PM // 22:38

According to the EULA selling your account is also a no no so I doubt they will be giving an option to unlink them.

http://www.guildwars.com/support/legal/termsofuse.php

Quote:

Can I resell my ArenaNet account?

No.

Know how legal is EULA can be debated but since you would violate there EULA (even if this is legal or not) they can ban your account. Aka do you want to take them to court over this if they caught you and fight it in the legal system.

Opps that was the wrong EULA, that was with sites

Part 7 - http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php

Quote:

You may not sell or auction any Guild Wars accounts, characters, items, coin or copyrighted material, nor may you assist others in doing so.

Nominal_Fee · May 04, 2006, 10:50 PM // 22:50

Every single commercial piece of software on Earth is LICENSED not sold. The word "licensed" makes all the difference- you DON'T OWN THIS GAME, YOU CAN DO NOTHING WITH IT.

Ardrid · May 04, 2006, 10:53 PM // 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

According to the EULA selling your account is also a no no so I doubt they will be giving an option to unlink them.

http://www.guildwars.com/support/legal/termsofuse.php

Know how legal is EULA can be debated but since you would violate there EULA (even if this is legal or not) they can ban your account. Aka do you want to take them to court over this if they caught you and fight it in the legal system.

Opps that was the wrong EULA, that was with sites

Part 7

I never said sell the account. I said sell the key that allows you to play a specific piece of software (Prophecies, Factions, etc.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nominal_Fee

Every single commercial piece of software on Earth is LICENSED not sold. The word "licensed" makes all the difference- you DON'T OWN THIS GAME, YOU CAN DO NOTHING WITH IT.

And yes, you ARE buying a license, but under contract law you may also ASSIGN that license to whomever you choose, which is exactly why I'm able to sell other software bc once I give up my key, I lose (transfer/assign) my license to someone else. If your logic were true, we wouldn't have used software and games at EB and GameStop.

Loviatar · May 04, 2006, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardrid

I
And yes, you ARE buying a license, but under contract law you may also ASSIGN that license to whomever you choose, which is exactly why I'm able to sell other software bc once I give up my key, I lose (transfer/assign) my license to someone else. If your logic were true, we wouldn't have used software and games at EB and GameStop.

the games at the used counter are not secure account server games.

go back to law school because i have had business law and that non transferable clause repeated here and there covers what you want to do very nicely.

Ardrid · May 05, 2006, 03:43 AM // 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

the games at the used counter are not secure account server games.

go back to law school because i have had business law and that non transferable clause repeated here and there covers what you want to do very nicely.

Yeah, but they also have CD keys that function in the exact manner: to provide the consumer with a license to use the software, a license that can be assigned to someone else upon being sold. Under this policy, I, as a consumer, am completely screwed should I ever want to sell MY game/license, which I am COMPLETELY entitled to do (if you don't think so, then it's YOU who need to go back to law school). But then, it sounds like you just might support the RIAA's push to prevent users from ripping CDs (something clearly covered under fair use). In any event, I'm not discussing business law, I'm discussing contract law and IP. Furthermore, I'm not disputing the fact that a non-transferable clause exists. Nor am I disputing it's function. If you've had business law (quite a bit different than practicing), then you know that simply because you can throw a clause somewhere oesn't make it right or legally justifiable (franchise agreements come to mind). Add in the fact that no-one reads shrink-wrap agreements and you have yourself a perfect hook.

Btw, you might want to read that clause before you criticize my knowledge. It provides that the key is non-transferable (which I trust you know is different than something being assignable) AND can only be used by one person, which is consistent with unlinking keys. You might also want to read the restrictions, which don't explicitly prohibit you from selling (and I'm sorry, the catch-all doesn't work here because they could've easily added sell in place of rent/lease, both of which are temporary transfers for money, meaning you'd be profiting off ANet's IP). There's also the little nuance that selling isn't quite the same as transferring (as transferring implies that you're merely giving something you own, and still have a license for, to someone else). But you know what really kills the non-transferable clause's power with respect to the keys? It's the simple fact that you couldn't transfer the key by itself even if you wanted to. The clause is completely moot as to keys. You can only transfer the account, and as I've stated, that's not what I'm advocating. I'm simply asking why not allow either us to unlink our keys OR allow ANet to do it for us at our request or if we have two copies (CE/SE)?

Again, there is no valid legal reason why such a policy exists and YOU certainly can't articulate one, either in business law or in IP. ANet can't argue that they're losing money because the license was already paid for. You can't make the argument that the seller is profiting off ANet's IP by selling their copy because the amount of money spent on the license hasn't changed (i.e. A paid $50 for it and B bought it from A for $30. While B technically has the same license for $30, A is still down $20 and guess who still made $50 btw the two of them: ANet). They also can't argue that their copyrights are being infringed because the person selling their game no longer has a license to play with and thus has no access to copyrighted material. If ANet sanctioned the unlinking of keys there would be NO violation of the EULA because one person would still have the rights and limitations provided. There would be no sharing of the account, which is prohbited by the EULA and no accounts would've been transferred in the process. Bottom-line: there is NO valid legal reason for this policy at all and YOU know it.

There are those out there who support this (I've seen their posts) and there are those who don't. In either case, I've said my piece. And nah, I think it's you who needs to go back to law school. Done and done.

chris_bernal FTW · May 05, 2006, 03:54 AM // 03:54

I like it, is it because of Kuuvanang or whatever the hell his name is

? Truth is, then people would be selling their *unlinked* keys to people instead of accounts. Then you don't even need to let the check an account so you can scam if you only have one. Just say:

pay 50k 2 check, when activated cum back n pay mee 150k, kk?

Laibeus Lord · May 05, 2006, 04:24 AM // 04:24

/ungsigned

too dangerous.
Hack accounts will have their keys unlinked and voila, you have unlink keys floating the net that came from hacked accounts.
more trouble, more time will be wasted tracking these activities.

good idea, but will only introduce more problems in the long-run.

SAQ · May 05, 2006, 05:47 AM // 05:47

/unsigned

Let me ask you this.. how do you go about unlinking every single thing within your GW account and distribute the WAY you like it for both keys?

Money? Characters? Storage? Skills unlocked? etc... think think think. It may be a good idea but it isn't worth the effort.

Markaedw · May 05, 2006, 03:28 PM // 15:28

OP, I think what would be more appropriate, is to have the CE key seperate from the game key, that way I buy CE use the CE key to get the pet and dances, and then I have a SE retail version that I can use as a mule, give to friends or resale in a way that does not violate the EULA.

If that were the case I would buy a prophecies CE, even though it is at amazon for $99

fiery · May 05, 2006, 03:59 PM // 15:59

You can't sign ya own petition defeats the purpose of people signing to your cause. As to unlinking, why link it to unlink.

mqstout · May 05, 2006, 05:40 PM // 17:40

No. But sell an "upgrade from normal to CE/SE" package with the bonuses and a linkable key only for that purpose. I didn't want to have to wait until July to get a copy of Factions CE, no matter what the bonuses! And, there's no way at all I'd consider buying a copy later to link to my account just for the CE bonus, wasting the actual account.

Diablo™ · May 05, 2006, 06:10 PM // 18:10

/unsigned

Not everything in life is refundable.

rollntider · May 05, 2006, 06:13 PM // 18:13

When you agree to the user license you agree to be the sole owner of that license and abide by Anet policies. Bother to read it and quite whinning. You paid for the right to play the game. Play it and enjoy.

/not signed

Jetdoc · May 05, 2006, 06:16 PM // 18:16

/unsigned.

This isn't rental property.

Juguard · May 05, 2006, 06:20 PM // 18:20

They only way I can see this work, is if you add a CE key over a SE key, then the SE key to be free, and then can be reused. But not the other way around, an SE key to not be able to replace a CE key.

That way, in a hacked account, the hacker can't, well he/she will never replace an SE key with a CE, just so he can get the SE key to use for himself. And besides, he needs access to the account email to see the key if its released... But then, sometimes that email account is using the same Password.

Advice: Don't use an email for your your GW account that you use with everyone else. That way you dont give hackers a head start on your account. Make a new email Address just for GW.

Omega X · May 05, 2006, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardrid

Yeah, but they also have CD keys that function in the exact manner: to provide the consumer with a license to use the software, a license that can be assigned to someone else upon being sold. Under this policy, I, as a consumer, am completely screwed should I ever want to sell MY game/license, which I am COMPLETELY entitled to do (if you don't think so, then it's YOU who need to go back to law school). But then, it sounds like you just might support the RIAA's push to prevent users from ripping CDs (something clearly covered under fair use). In any event, I'm not discussing business law, I'm discussing contract law and IP. Furthermore, I'm not disputing the fact that a non-transferable clause exists. Nor am I disputing it's function. If you've had business law (quite a bit different than practicing), then you know that simply because you can throw a clause somewhere oesn't make it right or legally justifiable (franchise agreements come to mind). Add in the fact that no-one reads shrink-wrap agreements and you have yourself a perfect hook.

Btw, you might want to read that clause before you criticize my knowledge. It provides that the key is non-transferable (which I trust you know is different than something being assignable) AND can only be used by one person, which is consistent with unlinking keys. You might also want to read the restrictions, which don't explicitly prohibit you from selling (and I'm sorry, the catch-all doesn't work here because they could've easily added sell in place of rent/lease, both of which are temporary transfers for money, meaning you'd be profiting off ANet's IP). There's also the little nuance that selling isn't quite the same as transferring (as transferring implies that you're merely giving something you own, and still have a license for, to someone else). But you know what really kills the non-transferable clause's power with respect to the keys? It's the simple fact that you couldn't transfer the key by itself even if you wanted to. The clause is completely moot as to keys. You can only transfer the account, and as I've stated, that's not what I'm advocating. I'm simply asking why not allow either us to unlink our keys OR allow ANet to do it for us at our request or if we have two copies (CE/SE)?

Again, there is no valid legal reason why such a policy exists and YOU certainly can't articulate one, either in business law or in IP. ANet can't argue that they're losing money because the license was already paid for. You can't make the argument that the seller is profiting off ANet's IP by selling their copy because the amount of money spent on the license hasn't changed (i.e. A paid $50 for it and B bought it from A for $30. While B technically has the same license for $30, A is still down $20 and guess who still made $50 btw the two of them: ANet). They also can't argue that their copyrights are being infringed because the person selling their game no longer has a license to play with and thus has no access to copyrighted material. If ANet sanctioned the unlinking of keys there would be NO violation of the EULA because one person would still have the rights and limitations provided. There would be no sharing of the account, which is prohbited by the EULA and no accounts would've been transferred in the process. Bottom-line: there is NO valid legal reason for this policy at all and YOU know it.

There are those out there who support this (I've seen their posts) and there are those who don't. In either case, I've said my piece. And nah, I think it's you who needs to go back to law school. Done and done.

Regardless of your ramblings. You are not allowed to resell keys. End of Story.

You can rant at ANET and NC Soft until you are blue in the face. They DO NOT allow reselling of keys. PERIOD. You agreed to a binding contract when you created your account. The only way out of that contract is deleting your account.

ElinoraNeSangre · May 05, 2006, 07:11 PM // 19:11

I like the idea of the CE stuff being separate from the game key. As an example, Jade Empire did something similar with their collector's edition - the game CD was exactly the same, but came with a second disk that had the bonus content.

I wanted to have *something* to play so I got SE, but I would love to have CE. It would be cool if I could buy CE, add a bonus key to my account, and use the other key to set up an account for my husband (heh, thus effectively wrangling him in).

However, no, I don't feel the key should be able to simply be transfered. This opens up a door to a whole new account abuse scenario. One person plays through the game, unlinks their account, passes the key to a friend, who plays through the whole thing and unlinks, and then THEY pass it on.

Let's take it a step further. What happens if an account is banned for getting stuff and selling on ebay? Is the "account" banned? What's stopping someone from just unlinking the key and starting over again? Is the actual key banned? Well, then, what if people are buying keys from people and whoops! this one has been banned. Aw, too bad so sad, screwed.

There's enough trouble with the fact that it's not hard to just give your whole account to someone else, but at least it's all in ONE piece.

There's no legally justifiable reason for them to let people unlink keys, either. ANet's software, ANet's servers, ANet's rules, so long as they're not breaking the law. They're not.

I would dearly love to be able to swap out my SE key with a CE key, but it's not going to happen, and I knew that when I bought SE. :: shrug ::